The Interpreter`s Dilemma and what visitors think

The Interpreter’s Dilemma
and what visitors think about it
(Patrick Lehnes)
1
Introduction: an excursion on the Belchen Summit
October, 12, 2000 on the Belchen Summit in the Southern Black Forest (in the very
South-West of Germany): An international group of experts in Heritage Interpretation
from Scotland, England, Germany, France, Slovakia and Austria are visiting the
Belchen Discovery trail. The author of this paper had planned the interpretation,
written the texts and had been responsible for its implementation.
This excursion should serve as an example within an international workshop. The
group had the task to test a provisional system of recommendations and standards for
Heritage Interpretation which had been proposed by the Transinterpret project (c.f.
Lehnes & Zányi 2004). In order to allow an unbiased application of the criteria, no
background information on the objectives of the Belchen Discovery trail had been
given in advance.
Demonstrating the Discovery Trail to these experts invited some critical remarks…
“You should not interpret that bluebells which people can identify only during the
short time period while they blossom! Why did you not choose the heather?”
“Those panels are old fashioned! However they do not disturb the splendid views.”
“A common theme is missing!”
“Too much text for an audience on leisure!”
“Several obvious questions remain unanswered!”
“No smell, touch or hands-on experience is provided: Just an outdated look-and-see
trail!”
…and it caused quite a hard time for the author, who had intended to create an
example of good practice. On the other hand these negative experts’ judgments were
contrasting the positive feedback, which had been collected so far by a small number
of qualitative visitors’ interviews and by the local tourism agencies.
This obvious discrepancy and being aware of the reasons for several of the criticised
shortcomings revealed what may be called the “interpreter’s dilemma”: Although most
quality criteria and recommendations in technical literature on Heritage Interpretation
are well reasoned; In practice, however, there are sometimes good reasons not to meet
these abstract criteria. Some criteria for good practice tend to contradict others.
This paper exemplifies dealing with such a “dilemma” while planning the Belchen
Discovery Trail; it presents some preliminary results of still ongoing visitor surveys on
1
this example; and it discusses some first conclusions for setting up quality standards
for interpretive provision.
2
A site that draws attention: the Belchen Summit Trail in the Black Forest
The creation of the Belchen trail has been part of a bigger project “Heritage
Interpretation to Promote Sustainable Tourism” (Lehnes & Glawion, 2000). This pilot
project within the Naturpark Südschwarzwald (Southern Black Forest Nature Park)
comprises the whole process from the feasibility study and interpretive planning to
implementation.
A network of nine self-guided trails was developed in the districts of 8 villages and the
rural town of Schönau. The area is situated in the Southern Black Forest on the eastern
slope of the Belchen (1414 m) and in the valley of the Große Wiese River. Each trail
has a central topic – ranging from Palaeozoic geology, the traces of the last glaciation
in the ice-age to the history of the town up to recent times.
Figure 1: A series of booklets in combination with numbered posts along the discovery
trails encourage the visitors to notice special features and provide background
explanations (Photo Lehnes 2001).
In September 1999 the first interpretive trail on the Belchen summit was opened. In
May 2001 all 9 Discovery Trails were officially launched.
The project had a clear priority: Promotion of sustainable tourism by offering
opportunities for visitors to experience the specials features and characteristics of their
holiday area. Other objectives were to raise awareness for the rich natural and cultural
2
history and to support marketing of regional products. From the scientific point of
view the pilot project aimed to transfer the thematic approach to Heritage
Interpretation (e.g. Ham 1992) to Germany and adjust it to the region’s main target
group, which are walking and hiking tourists. An additional aim of this applied project
has been setting the stage for empirical field research, mainly by visitor surveys and
visitor observation.
Figure 2: A solid rock next to the “Trail back to the Palaeozoic” is cut and polished – like
a gravestone. Now it provides in situ evidence about the volcanic history of an ancient
mountain range. The booklet interprets the silent language of the minerals to the
dramatic story of melting rock (Photo Lehnes 2002).
In comparison to the other eight discovery trails the Belchen summit trail is situated in
an extraordinary place. It leads to the top of the Belchen Mountain which is the third
highest summit in the Black Forest. The spectacular views to the Alpine chain, the
Upper Rhine Rift Valley and the Vosges Mountains attract more than 200 000 visitors
per year – right into the centre of an important nature reserve. Because of the virtually
and really exposed nature of the Belchen summit, interpretive planning has been
influenced by strong driving forces from different directions (c.f. planning approaches
as defined by Brochu 2003):
1. The top priority of supporting sustainable tourism calls for a market based
planning approach (Brochu 2003, 15).
Consequently the planning was preceded by a survey among tourists staying in two
different destinations of the Black Forest (Lehnes 1997). It revealed that most
tourists appreciate to learn more about the characteristics of the region and the
special features of its natural and cultural sites. In this respect the market-based
3
planning approach demanded for a mainly resource-based planning (c.f. below) for
the whole discovery trails project.
Concerning the type of interpretive facilities the pre-study gave evidence that
tourists to the Black Forest clearly prefer self-guided interpretive trails instead of
guided tours, museums and exhibitions, slide shows or more detailed books.
Belchen visitors have been interviewed on which topics would be most interesting
to them. Besides the expected topics dealing with the special features of the
Belchen and the distant views this small enquiry had an unexpected outcome:
Several visitors were wondering about stumps of small trees which obviously had
been sawed off in the heart of the nature reserve.
2. The nature reserve is managed by a governmental nature conservation agency that
provided significant funding for this trail. Therefore – in contrast to the other trails
– the additional objectives of this agency had to be taken into account (c.f.
objective-based planning approach by Brochu 2003, 19).
The conservation agency wished to give the visitors an idea of its work, i.e. biotope
management and visitor flow management. Visitors should learn that despite the
Belchen summit seems to be a wilderness in fact it is a vulnerable cultural
landscape; and its biotopes need human interference in order to preserve their rich
biodiversity – e.g. cutting down trees that threaten rare species. The necessity to
convey this message was underpinned by the above mentioned interviews.
3. The extraordinary nature of the reserve and the spectacular views along the trail
strongly suggest a resource-based planning (Brochu 2003, 18). This approach had
been reinforced by the result of market research that the visitors are strongly
interested in what makes the place special (c.f. no.1).
The core of the nature reserve – one of the oldest in Germany – is the summit area
being a small but scientifically important “island” of sub-alpine conditions. This
entails a flora and fauna that is very rare not only in the Black Forest but almost all
over Germany.
However these on-site resources have to compete with the distant views. The view
to the Rhine plain and the Vosges Mountains gives evidence of a highly significant
geological structure: the Upper Rhine Rift Valley. The Black Forest and the Vosges
are still slowly drifting apart. There are very rare places in the world that show so
spectacularly how the earth’s crust has broken – provided the air is not too misty.
4
Figure 3: View from the Belchen summit trail to the distant Vosges Mountains beyond
the wide Upper Rhine Rift Valley. The two mountain ranges are still moving in opposite
directions. It is almost impossible not to mention this outstanding geological structure
while interpreting the Belchen summit – at least for the author of this paper. (Photo
Lehnes 1999)
4. Although there have been significant financial contributions by the EU’s
Community Initiative LEADER II, the Naturpark Südschwarzwald and the
Conservation Agency, the restricted budgets of the local communities were a
limiting factor (c.f. budget-based planning approach Brochu 2003, 18). There was
no possibility to allocate substantial permanent budgets for maintaining the
interpretive facilities. Therefore costly interactive exhibits or audio devices were
not affordable.
The decision to use booklets as main media for the Discovery Trails project had to be
questioned for the Belchen summit trail. The Nature Conservation Agency wished to
reach those visitors who are not ready to pay for a booklet, too. Furthermore the
booklets were supposed to be easily available for purchase for those tourists who stay
for some days in the project area. The majority of visitors to the Belchen summit
though are day trippers and tourists who stay at places beyond the project area.
Considering the maintenance costs the planning team decided to use panels as
additional medium on the Belchen – despite the old fashioned reputation of these
traditional media, and despite the widespread opinion among German environmental
5
educators panels would not work and would be ignored by the great majority of
visitors.
However the planner was convinced that seriously applying the principles and
recommendations for good practice in interpretation as published by Ham (1992),
Serrel (1996), Trapp et al. (1994) and others can enhance the effectiveness of panel
trails significantly.
During the further planning process this complex situation at the Belchen summit
forced to cope with what was later realised and called the “interpreter’s dilemma”.
3
Interpreter’s dilemma on the Belchen summit
Among the many quality criteria and recommendations for good practice several
tended to contradict each other in the case of the Belchen trail (c.f. Figure 4).
Confine to
one Theme!
Highlight the
special
features!
Reveal the hidden
background
stories!
Focus on concrete
sensual
experiences!
Never
too much!
Answer the
obvious
questions!
Enhance
awareness for
conservation!
Lehnes 2000 (revised)
Figure 4: Interpreter’s Dilemma while working on the plan for a self-guided trail on the
Belchen.
Probably most interpreters are familiar with similar situations. With the project’s
purpose and the target groups in mind experienced planners are able to decide rather
quickly which criteria should be prioritised. Sometimes such decisions can be made
rather intuitively and semi-consciously, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However,
the experts’ excursion to the Belchen showed the need for a comprehensible reasoning.
6
3.1
“Special features” versus “concrete sensual experience”
The highlights of fauna and flora are glacial relics that are common in the Alps in subalpine meadows but very rare in the Black Forest: e.g. a special species of dandelion
(Leontodon helveticus), a special bluebell (Campanula scheuchzeri), the Alpine
mountain grasshopper (Miramella alpine).
The problem with those species: The grasshopper is very tiny and visitors usually
don’t see them. At some places along the trail the visitors can quite easily find the
flowers; But only during the two months while they are blossoming. The special
wildlife of the Belchen summit is invisible for most visitors.
Highlighting what makes the Belchen summit special was considered top priority by
the planner because of the results of the preliminary investigations. However, the
criterion to focus interpretation on phenomena that can be perceived by the visitors
(Ludwig 2003) was a strong argument against interpreting these species. There was no
solution to meet both criteria ideally. Three stops out of nine deal with the rare and
often invisible species. Mentioning their habitats at least allowed connecting the theme
of the respective panel with what is visible at that place. It was an open question how
the visitors would judge these stops.
Figure 5: The two summit panels show sections of the Alpine panorama. Visitors are
encouraged to test, how far they can see. And the interpretation provides an answer, why
most visitors are not able to experience the full panorama.
The spectacular distant views along the Belchen summit trail, meet both criteria:
highlighting a special feature and experiencing an impressing phenomenon. – But this
7
experience depends on the weather conditions. To see the Alps requires a visibility of
at least 140 km. This rarely happens during the summer months. Even the Vosges
Mountains are 70 km away. However the interpretive planner assumed that many
people visit the Belchen because of its famous views. Therefore they had to be treated.
In order to reduce disappointments and to stimulate interaction, the Alpine panorama is
connected with the entertaining task of finding out how far one is able to see at the
moment. For the great majority of visitors these panels only reveal, what could
potentially be sensually experienced – provided one was very lucky.
3.2
“Background stories” versus “never too much”
To appreciate the significance of a feature, visitors need an understanding of what
makes it special. This understanding usually is not trivial but requires some
background knowledge. Concerning the Upper Rhine Rift Valley one has to
understand that whole mountain ranges are slowly moving and masses of rock have
disappeared in the vast gap. But mere cognitive understanding is not enough; it should
be provided in a manner that provokes even more than thought and discussion (Carter
1997, 6) but emotions and feeling, too, e.g. by connecting it with the perception of
individuals or metaphors that relate to the visitors’ experience. Furthermore, when one
starts telling a story with a complex background, new questions will arise that require
answers. Otherwise people remain unsatisfied.
In other cases just stating that several species are very rare quickly becomes boring. In
order to relate people emotionally with a plant or wildlife some special capabilities,
characteristics or entertaining anecdotes add colour to the mere facts.
All these considerations show a tendency that entertaining interpretation aiming to
reveal what’s beyond the surface tends to longer texts and/or more complex
illustrations. However, people on leisure are commonly supposed to refuse staying in
front of an outdoor panel reading long stories. Sam Ham recommended generally not
using more than 50 to 60 words on a panel; and 65 words should rarely be exceeded, if
the interpreter wants anyone to read it (Ham 1992, 327).
In the case of the Belchen trail the interpreter needed many more than these 65 words
to create a “Sense of Belchen Summit” in an entertaining way that reveals its
significance. Considering that Central Europeans are probably more used to reading
than the average Americans and that the readiness to read increases with more
provoking and interesting texts a maximum of 200 words per panel was fixed. The
average of all panels is about 170 words. On the other hand the visitors were not
expected to read the entire story at each stop. The texts have been organised in main
paragraphs, additional paragraphs and captions giving the reader the choice which
8
parts seem interesting. Concerning this question of optimal text length, the Belchen
trail again served as a big field experiment with an open result.
3.3
“Only one theme” versus “conservation message” and “obvious questions”
Confining the interpretation strictly to one overriding theme was an important aim of
the Discovery Trails project from the scientific point of view. The arguments for
focussing on one central idea (c.f. Ham 1992) are convincing – e.g. not overwhelming
the visitors with unrelated facts, or more easily memorable messages. Furthermore,
dividing one overriding theme into smaller pieces for each stop could have been the
ideal solution to the above explained conflict between keeping the texts as short as
possible and revealing the interesting and entertaining backgrounds. Nevertheless the
project team did not find the one convincing theme that could cover all the different
“must”-messages which have been mentioned previously (chapter 2):
-
The Belchen summit is an important island of sub-alpine conditions where wildlife
with rare glacial relics survived.
-
The Belchen summit is part of the shoulder of the Upper Rhine Rift Valley which
is still active.
-
This nature reserve is not wilderness but a cultural landscape that needs care.
-
The most urging questions for the majority of visitors are like: Is this distant
mountain the famous Eiger? Are those mountains the Vosges etc.
Figure 6: The desire to recognise the highest elevation of the Black Forest is combined
with the surprising glacial history of the area. The panel shows a photo reconstruction of
the Wiese glacier at the peak of the Ice age when is has been bigger than the longest
Alpine glacier is today (Photos by Lehnes 2003 and 2000).
9
An easy solution would have been a weak theme-statement like: “The Belchen summit
is a very interesting place”. However, such an abstract statement applies almost
everywhere and virtually doesn’t say anything. On the other hand, the planner did not
want to skip the thematic approach totally. The – not really satisfying – solution was a
central idea that includes different concrete aspects and relates only to seven of nine
stops:
“The Belchen summit has a variety of different relationships to the Alps:
• its sub-alpine wildlife and a typical timberline;
• the raven (Corvus corax)) that had been extinct almost all over Germany,
survived in its Alpine refuge and returned from there to the Belchen;
• the great panoramic view to the Alps;
•
erosion problems similar to some Alpine summits;
•
a glacial history comparable with today’s biggest Alpine glaciers.”
Although there is a geological relationship between the Upper Rhine Rift Valley and
the Alpine uplift this topic was considered far too complex for this trail; and the
conservation agency’s biotope-management is not related to the Alps at all.
These experiences revealed some of the difficulties, which may occur when applying
the thematic approach together with other criteria for good practice. Practice requires
decisions – sometimes under time pressure. The planner had to accept some
shortcomings in order to meet other criteria which seemed more important for the
overall-success. After having decided the priorities the next step had been trying to
optimise the lower priority criteria within the given framework.
But what do the visitors think about the interpreter’s dilemma and the chosen
solutions?
4
The visitors’ opinions
Between early autumn 2001 and late spring 2002 first surveys have been undertaken
on the Belchen in order to explore the visitors’ opinions on the conflicting criteria for
good interpretation. These surveys were carried out in the context of the Transinterpret
project (c.f. Lehnes & Zányi 2004), which aims to develop transferable
recommendations and quality standards for Heritage Interpretation as a means for
sustainable rural development.
Answering the semi-standardised questionnaire took about 15 minutes. The interview
partners were selected randomly at the trail-end. 41% of the selected visitors refused
giving an interview. The major reasons were being in a hurry for the bus, and impatient
children or dogs. In the average these groups certainly are less ready to staying in front
of panels and reading the texts. This issue should be taken into account when
10
interpreting the following figures. 300 persons were ready to give an interview. 280 of
them did look at least at some panels.
Due to a shortage of money the summer season was not represented enough in this
sample. Therefore the survey is going to be continued during the summer seasons 2003
and 2004. Thus, the results which are presented in this paper are still preliminary.
4.1
“Special features” versus “concrete sensual experience”
One of the weaknesses of the Belchen Discovery trail is certainly that the plants and
animals that are interpreted remain virtually invisible for the most time of the year.
This shortcoming is also recognised by many visitors.
Are the panels sufficiently related to what can be observed?
no panel
0%
few panels
3%
about half
7%
most panels
54%
all panels
28%
no answer
8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Figure 7: The visitors’ opinions about how many panels are sufficiently related to what
can be observed at the stop. About half of the interviews were taken while the Alpine
plants that are described on one panel were not flowering (late autumn 2001 and spring
2002).
Only about one quarter think that all panels are sufficiently related to what can be
observed. For this group the relation to the visible habitat is probably sufficient. The
others would prefer a stronger relation to what can be perceived.
However this does not mean that one should never interpret animals and plants that are
not visible. The great majority would not agree at all, with such a statement (c.f.
Figure 8).
11
"I think animals and plants should be interpreted only if they
can be observed!" Do you agree?
I agree..
fully
4,3%
quite
4,6%
partly
11,1%
little
12,5%
not at all
no answer
66,8%
0,7%
0,0%
20,0%
40,0%
60,0%
80,0%
Figure 8: Two thirds of the interviewees reject the statement, that one should only
interpret those plants and animals that can be observed.
This clear result has been surprising. Two control questions provided a slightly more
differentiated picture:
•
“I think, plants and animals that are not visible should be interpreted, if they are
rare and special to the place!” This statement was fully agreed by even 74%.
•
“I think, plants and animals that are not visible should be interpreted, if they are
well known!” – Like the ravens. Still 62% did fully agree. However the
affirmation is significantly smaller.
Of course these results are influenced by the visitors’ experiences with such panels just
a few minutes before. There might be a different outcome to similar questions, if the
texts would have been more formal, less entertaining and less focussed on what makes
the Belchen summit special.
Obviously the best choice is to interpret features that are very special and easily visible
and can be experienced with other senses, too. However in practice the conditions are
rarely ideal. The results of the enquiry indicate that one should not hesitate presenting
those features that make the place special, even if they are invisible. An audience of
hikers and walkers, who usually wish to know some background about the places they
are visiting, will appreciate such interpretation – at least to some extent.
4.2
Brief texts versus background stories and interesting details?
As explained above, the planner had decided to exceed the maximum 65 words
recommendation for three times. The reaction of the visitors – the great majority are
Germans – has not been predictable at all.
12
Do you consider the amount of texts appropriate?
3%
rather too much text
appropriate
93%
could be more text
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 9: The great majority of visitors consider the average of 170 words per panel
along the Belchen Discovery trail as appropriate.
This unexpected result does not necessarily imply that everybody does really read all
the texts. The texts are an offer to the visitors and they can choose what is most
interesting.
Again it should be stressed that this result is highly depended on to what extend the
other quality criteria for interpretive trails are met. It does not justify a single general
rule like: “Never exceed 200 words and your visitors will not be overwhelmed” –
regardless how boring your story is to the visitors or regardless how hard it is to
decipher... However it indicates that within the comprehensive Transinterpret standards
framework, the recommendation not to exceed 200 words on outdoor panels is on the
secure side – for a German audience.
4.3
The thematic focus and unanswered obvious questions
The thematic approach to heritage interpretation is not yet common in Germany and
the visitors do not know the distinction between the notions of ‘topic’ and ‘theme’
which has developed in professional interpretation (c.f. Ham 1992). Therefore the term
‘theme’ should be taken synonymous to ‘topic’ when reading the results of the Belchen
Trail survey.
As described above it was not possible to find a convincing overriding theme that
covers all stops, or to delete those stops that did not fit in the theme respectively.
This shortcoming from the perspective of the thematic approach is partly reflected by
the answers:
•
14 % did not recognise any theme (topic) at all;
•
27 % recognised several themes;
•
Only 4 % affirmed the statement that there was one theme that covered most
panels, which corresponded the planners own opinion;
13
•
45 % identified one theme for all panels. However, these persons did recognise
a variety of topics: “Nature”, “the Belchen”, “development of the nature and
man’s influence on it”; “the landscape and glaciations”; “conservation”…
The panels do not communicate the intended specific theme “the Belchen has several
different relations with the Alps”; and the relation to the Alps had been mentioned by
only six persons (2 %). The attempt to optimise a subordinate thematic red thread
within the given limitations obviously failed.
On the other hand, the majority of the Belchen visitors do not really miss a stronger
focus on a central theme or topic respectively.
Which statements concerning themes do the visitors agree with?
"I like it, when a trail focuses on one theme!"
"I like it, when a trail covers several different themes!"
35%
32%
30%
29%
25%
25%
22%
22% 23%
20%
20%
16%
15%
10%
7%
5%
5%
0%
% of visitors, who do agree to the above statements...
...quite
...partly
...not at all
...a little
...fully
Figure 10: The Belchen visitors’ opinion on whether a trail should focus on one theme or
present several different themes.
The questions whether interpretive trails generally should focus on one theme or
whether they should cover several different themes, showed scattered opinions. There
is even an unexpected tendency to prefer a variety of different topics.
But again the visitors’ fresh experiences at the Belchen trail must be taken into
account. Because of its shortcomings in respect of the thematic approach, the
interviewees could not experience the benefits of a thematically coherent interpretation
– and presumably they rarely came in contact with good examples. Therefore this
14
result does not necessarily mean that thematic interpretation would not be appreciated
by the majority. On the other hand the preference for different topics could indicate a
desire for variety which adds to entertainment. In this respect there might appear
another potential contradiction among quality criteria. Another reason might be the
desire to get an overview on all the different characteristics that make the place special
– instead of focusing on one specific theme. A valid answer to this question will
require further research.
Does the Discovery Trail answer the obvious questions that appear in the visitors’
minds?
81 % of the interviewees did not miss answers to questions that appeared
spontaneously. Only 16 % reported such questions which were not answered by the
panels. Most of them had to do with the names of summits and villages that can be
seen from along the trail. Some people wanted more in depth interpretation on the
wildlife or the former glaciations.
Unanswered Questions
Did questions appear that are not
answered?
16%
Should they be treated along the path?
11%
Even if one of the existing panels had to
be deleted
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
% answering with "yes" (n=280)
Figure 11: Unanswered questions that appeared to the Belchen Discovery trail visitors.
Sometimes these spontaneous questions might appear from individual background
knowledge, and can be rather specific and of mainly personal interest. Therefore the
interviewees were asked whether or not their unanswered questions (if there had been
any) should have been treated along the trail. Three quarter answered with “yes”.
However, this picture changes if these interviewees are confronted with the alternative
that one of the existing panels would have to be replaced in order to treat the additional
topic. Only every fourth of those remaining persons who wished their open questions
being integrated in the interpretation, would have agreed to such a replacement. Thus,
only 3 % of all visitors wished more information on other topics so urgently that they
would agree to replace an existing panel by a new panel.
15
In the case of contradicting quality criteria the interpretive planners have to put up
with weaknesses – besides those shortcomings that are due to a lack of time, a lack of
know-how and other reasons. What finally counts however is to what extent the
project reaches its goals.
4.4
The overall satisfaction
The priority goal for the Belchenland Discovery Trails was enhancing the
attractiveness of sustainable tourism by professional interpretive provision. Therefore
the satisfaction of the visitors is an important criterion for success – besides all more
specific questions that should provide some insight into the contribution of different
factors for that success.
As mouth to mouth propaganda is the most important advertising of the tourism
destination, the visitors have been asked whether or not they would recommend the
Belchen trail to others.
Would you recommend this trail?
no
2%
partly
3%
92%
yes
3%
I don' know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 12: The visitors’ statements whether or not they would recommend the Belchen
Discovery Trail (n=280).
Although the more specific questions revealed that the visitors are well aware of
several shortcomings, the great majority states that they would recommend the
Discovery Trail.
Another integrative indicator is the amount of text which visitors actually did read.
With her master thesis Helga Wittib undertook surveys at two interpretive trails on
different Black Forest summits: the Belchen trail again and the Schauinsland trail
(Wittib 2002). Both interpretive trails are the same age – opened in 1999 – and offer
panels along the most frequented routes from the car park to the nearby summit and
back. Even the contents of the two trails are comparable to some extent. Although the
Schauinsland trail is much longer, the great majority of visitors only use the upper part
in the summit area (with seven panels).
16
Figure 13: The “Landscape in the West” panel at the Schauinsland summit explaining
the Upper Rhine Rift Valley (Photo Lehnes 2003). The headings and the main text
comprise 324 words.
The major difference is that planning the Belchen trail has been based on the knowhow of Heritage Interpretation as developed in America and Britain, while the project
team of the Schauinsland trail did not have access to this approach. Therefore an
assessment of the Belchen and the Schauinsland trails against the Transinterpret
quality criteria showed a significant difference. The Belchen trail achieved 87 % of the
Transinterpret index, which summarises the extent to which the Transinterpret quality
criteria are met. This good result was not surprising, because the planner of the
Belchenland Discovery trails has developed this assessment index, too (c.f. Lehnes &
Zányi 2004). The first seven stops of the Schauinsland trail reached 56 %. Concerning
text length for example, most panels did not fully meet the maximum 200 words
criterion: The amounts of text vary between 174 and 465 words per panel.
The objective of the comparative study was finding out, to what extent this significant
difference would be reflected by the visitors’ readiness to reading the panels.
Wittib interviewed 150 persons at each trail end, asking which panels they had noticed.
For each noticed panel she asked whether the interviewees read the texts completely,
or selected sections, or only the heading, or nothing at all.
17
Schauinsland trail:
Visitors having read the panels completely
Panel topics
Pasture beeches
34%
25%
Mountain forest
Landscape in the East
27%
Landscape in the North
28%
29%
Landscape in the West
Plants of pastures
18%
The rocks
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
80%
100%
The Belchen trail:
Visitors having read the panels completely
Panel topics
Alpine Plants
56%
65%
Ravens
Timber line
60%
Erosion
69%
Upper Rhine Rfit Valley
62%
View to the Alps
62%
Alpine Animals
62%
66%
Glaciation
Conservation
59%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Figure 14: Visitors of the Schauinsland trail and the Belchen trail, who stated that they
have read the entire text. 100 % corresponds with all visitors who have noticed the
respective panel (which is between 46 and 109 at the Schauinsland and between 97 and
118 at the Belchen panels). Data collected by Helga Wittib in 2002.
Figure 14 gives some evidence on the visitors’ different readiness to read the panels of
the Belchen and the Schauinsland trails. The average percentage of interviewees who
read the entire texts at the Belchen panels is 62 %; the average at the Schauinsland is
26 %. On the other hand on the Schauinsland an average of 38 % visitors said they did
18
only read the title or nothing at all at the respective stop. At the Belchen the respective
percentage of non-readers is 12 %.
Comparing these figures clearly indicates that, meeting the quality criteria for Heritage
Interpretation enhances the success to a large extent. However, these data should not
be taken as valid in absolute figures. The question Wittib posed “At which panels did
you read the texts completely; at which only some sections, just the heading, or
nothing at all?” could have caused some interviewees be reluctant admitting that they
did not read “enough”. If this was the case a tendency not to give the true answer
would be stronger at the Schauinsland trail because a higher percentage would have
had to admit that they read only little or nothing. Therefore an even higher difference
in the results could be expected. In order to get more valid data this comparative
survey is currently repeated. A new introduction to this crucial question states that
“experience shows that only few visitors read all the texts of educational trails (…) Are
there panels where you read more than just the heading?…” The results are expected
in late 2004.
5
First conclusions and outlook
The studies in the Southern Black Forest proved that panels as a means for
interpretation are still important and can be quite successful. The opinion of some
environmental educators that panels generally do not work because people never read
them is false. Of course the success of interpretive panels depends on their quality –
quality defined as the ability to meet the customers’ expectations and needs. And an
interpretive planner always has to have two kinds of customers in mind: the visitors
and the organisations that run the interpretation project.
To some extent quality can be ensured by a careful planning which takes
systematically into account the know-how and the rich experience which is gathered in
the approach of Heritage Interpretation. This means satisfying interpretation needs
some time commitment; it also needs to realise the capabilities and limitations of a
project team with is formed by in-house staff or volunteers, and to buy in expertise
where necessary.
The quality of existing interpretative facilities varies largely. Few examples of good
practice are surrounded by lots of unprofessional work and sometimes very poor
quality that is much more likely to annoy visitors than to create enthusiasm.
Nevertheless sites with poor interpretation are still promoted by quite some tourism
organisations.
In this situation the tourists and other visitors respectively do not know in advance
whether or not an interpretive facility is worth visiting. An international label based on
quality standards might help sites to be more easily distinguished by foreign visitors;
19
and common quality standards should also help planning teams avoiding shortcomings
that reduce the success of the investments.
However by affirming the need for quality standards one needs to find solutions for
some obvious problems. Interpretation goes beyond pure science – it implies the art of
writing and speaking, a skill in the presentation of ideas (Tilden 1977, 31). Therefore
any standards must be flexible enough not to exterminate creativity. Furthermore a
quality system must be flexible enough to allow development according to new
findings, to different target groups, and to new social developments.
This paper dealt with the experience that quality criteria can contradict each other.
There is no general solution to such conflicts. Depending on the priority objectives of
the project the one or the other quality standard can be more important for the success.
In the Belchen example restricting the contents to only one theme would have been
much more important if the interpretation in the first place would have aimed to
convey a distinctive message. Instead focussing on the variety of special features on
this summit was considered more important, because the self-guided trail should serve
the tourists’ desire to learn what makes the place special. Clear priorities are necessary
in order to deal with such internal conflicts.
Finding and testing solutions for international standards that are flexible enough to be
adapted to individual projects is one of the challenges of the Transinterpret project.
Documentation of intrinsic conflicts and of the reasoning why some criteria are
considered less important than others in a given situation will be required. A
transparent quality system that allows flexibility in assessing different interpretive
facilities with different purposes is a precondition for an international quality label.
The other lesson learnt is, that visitors do appreciate interpretation despite there are
some shortcomings. Though, a serious effort to optimise the violated criteria as far as
possible seems to be crucial.
6
References
Brochu, Lisa (2003): Interpretive Planning. The 5-M Model for Successful Planning
Projects. interpPress, Fort Collins.
Carter James (ed.) (1997): A Sense of Place. An Interpretive Planning Handbook.
Published by Tourism and Environment Initiative, Inverness.
Trapp, Suzanne; Gross Micheal; Zimmermann Ron (²1994): Signs, Trails, and Wayside
Exhibits. Interpreter’s Handbook series. UW-SP Foundation Press, Stevens Point.
Ham, Sam. (1992): Environmental Interpretation. A Practical Guide for People with
Big Ideas and Small Budgets. North American Press, Golden, Colorado.
20
Lehnes, Patrick (1997): Zur touristischen Nachfrage nach Interpretation der
Landschaft - Möglichkeiten zur Umweltbildung en passant? Arbeitshilfen für
Erwachsenenbildung, H. 4/97. pp 35-39.
Lehnes, Patrick & Rainer Glawion (2000): Landschaftsinterpretation - ein Ansatz zur
Aufbereitung regionalgeographischer Erkenntnisse für den Tourismus. In:
Aktuelle Beiträge zur angewandten Physischen Geographie der Tropen,
Subtropen und der Regio TriRhena - Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr.
Rüdiger Mäckel. = Freiburger Geographische Hefte, H. 60, Freiburg. pp. 313326.
Ludwig, Thorsten (2003): Das Konzept der Naturinterpretation. Oder: wie sich die
Sprache der Phänomene in die Sprache der Menschen übersetzen lässt. Natur
erleben H. 4/2003, pp 74-77.
Serrel, Beverly (1996): Exhibit Labels. An Interpretive Approach. AltaMira Press,
Walnut Creek, London, New Delhi.
Tilden, Freeman (³1977): Interpreting our Heritage. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Wittib, Helga (2002): Entdeckungspfade und ihr Erfolg bei Besuchern. Ein Vergleich
des Belchenpfades mit dem Erzkasten Rundweg auf dem Schauinsland.
Unveröffentlichte wissenschaftliche Arbeit für das Höhere Lehramt an
Gymnasien; betreut durch Prof. Dr. Jörg Stadelbauer, Institut für
Kulturgeographie, Universität Freiburg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This paper is published as:
Lehnes, Patrick (2004): The interpreter's dilemma - and what visitors think of it.
Regionale Identität, Tourismus und Landschaftsinterpretation: Eine natürliche
Symbiose? = ZELT Forum - Göttinger Schriften zu Landschaftsinterpretation und
Tourismus 1: pp 41-61
21